.MTcyOQ.MTcyOQ

MINUTES OF THE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR URBAN RENEW AL BOARD OF DIRECTORS ROOM TRUST COMPANY OF GEORGIA TUESDAY, JUNE 24, 1969 The ful 1 Committee meeting of the CACUR was called to order promptly at 2:30 P. M. by the Chairman, Dr. Noah N. Langdale, Jr. Those attending from the Executive Committee were: Mr. T. M. Alexander, Sr. ; Mr. William · L. Calloway; Mr. Percy Hearle; Dean Alex B. Lacy, Jr; Dr . Benjamin E. Mays; Mr. A. B. Padgett; Mr. Richard H. Rich ; Mr. Edgar E. Schukraft. Other Commitee members in attendance were: Mr. F'red Burns, Jr.; The Reverend L. M. Terrill; Mr. William A. Toms; for the Board of Aldermen : Mr. JohnM. Flanigan; for the Finance Department of the City of Atlanta: Mr. Charles L. Davis, Director; Mr. James R. Fountain, Jr. ; Mrs. Linda Anderson; Mr. David Harvey; Mr. Michael T. Troncalli; for the Housing Authority: Mr. Thomas D. Eskew and Mr. James W. Henley, Jr.; for the West End Urban Renewal Project: Mr. W. Wilson McClure and Mrs. Barbara J. Ray, an academic intern working for the Housing Authority; for the Model Cities Program: Mr. Johnny C. Johnson, Director and Mr. James L. Wright, Physical Planner; the Urban Design Consultant Mr. Arnall T. 11 Pat 11 Connell of Georgia Tech; and for the Atlanta Constitution: Mr. Alex Coffin. Invitational Notice and Agenda for the meeting are attached to the file copy of these minutes. Chairman Langdale opened the meeting by welcoming those present and introducing Mr. Malcolm D. Jones, the new Executive Director, to the Committee. First on the program agenda was the announcement by the Chairman of the meeting of the Executive Committee on June 12, 1969. The Chairman stated that on June 12th there had been a meeting of the Executive Committee; that some members were concerned about progress of some phases of the Urban Renewal Program and wanted to have certain matters taken up with the Housing Authority and/or other governmental agencies, as appropriate . The Chairman announced that any recommendations of this nature by members should be submitted, in writing, to the Executive Director and consolidated for presentation to the Chairman for action. (He later explained that the names of those making such recommendations would not be revealed). The Chairman then announced that the 2nd item on the ~riginal agenda (special Committee Report by Mr. Bob Bivens) had been struck because of unavoidable abs_ence from the City of Mr . Bivens. However, the Chairman called on Mr. A. B'. �-2- Padgett, member of the Committee and Vice-Chairman, CACUR to give a resume of the Committee's work to-date. Mr. Padgett reported that the Committee had met and considered a restatement of purpose of CACUR, overall operational polic y , structured reorganiza,tion and revision of the membership list ; and that the committee is w orking on a report dealing with these matters for submission to t he entire membership of CACUR at an early date. . Mr. Padgett mentioned briefly some of the thinking of the Committee on reorganization and possibly recommendation for formation of some sub-committees , relating to special activitie s whi ch are being init ially considered. (Attached to file copy of these minute s). Mr. Padgett stated that tI:e Committee felt there should be no meeting during July and August of the full membership and that by the September meeting the Committee would have its full report in final form to submit to the overall Committee. Mr. Rich poi nte d out that ther e app e ar e d to b e ov e r_laping r e spons ibilities and some duplication of effort. Mr. Padgett concurred and stated that of course ther e could, and probably would, be some consolidati on ; that principal a c t ivities p e rtaining t o the ove rall Urban Renewal P r o gram had b een i n itially lis t e d s o as n ot to overlook a ny i m portant role. The Chairman obtained agreement from the members not to meet in July and August, but to hold E xe cutive Comm ittee m eeting s on ly during those mon t h s and called upon the m emb e rshi p to subm it to the E xe cutive Dir ector recommendation s f or i n clusion in the rev i s e d membe rshi p iis t. M r. Schukraf t s t ate d that he would like to advi se on the reorganiz ati on of CACUR . The Chairm_a n suggested that he meet w ith Mr . Bob Biv_ens _and M r . A . B. Padge tt p rivatel y fo r this purpo s e . Mr. Padg ett a gr eed . Mr. Jim W right , P hysic a l Pla n ner of M ode l C ities , was t hen called u p o n to present his proposed M odel Cities Urban Design Plan. . He explained his proposal, in which he was as s i s t e d b y Pr o fes so r " P at" C onnell of Ge o rg ia Te ch . The presentation was e s sentially a rather int ricate a nd vague p r op o s a l f o r d evelopment of a design plan, rather t h an pre s entat i o n of plan itself, which has not yet been initiated. (Note: After the meeting Mr. Wright then requested of Dean Lacy endorse ment of the proposal by CACUR.) -- . .. �-3- Mr. Schukraft stated that he was puzzled; that he wants to see action; that if we are not careful, all the monies will be eaten up in planning and administration before the action starts. He then inquired about the special buses now being provided for the Model Cities area which go into West End with nobody riding th~m? Mr. Johnny C. Johnson, Director of Model Cities, supplemented the explanation given by Mr. Wright, and explained quite effectively the purpose of the bus route and the theory of othe r sociological problems which Model Cities is trying to solve. The Chairman stated that as he understands this, the proposal appears to be one for developing a means for regulating and coordinating services and developments in the Model Cities area and an appeal for monies with which to provide these functions; that much of the monies would apparently be provide d by suppl e mented funds of the Model Cities Program. Mr. Charles Davis, Finance Director, was then called upon to rediscus s his earlier report of April 22nd to the Committee pretaining to the cost and financial problems of the Urban Renewal Program. Mr . Davis reviewed the history of the Urban Renewal Program in Atlanta, starting with the McDaniel Street Project, initiated in 1954, which was declared unconstitutional, and the necessity to then obtain special enabling legislation to make Urban Renewal constitutional in Georgia. He then discussed the initial 3 Urban Renewal Projects adopted in 1955 and B_o nd Issues floated with which to .pay the City's share (other than the sizable credits for improvements in kind). He mentioned that the program has now expanded to 10-12 projects, all of which have been slow to get into execution, usually about 5 years to get off the g round and anothe~ 5-10 years to exe cute. He then explained the N eighborhood D evelopment Program (NDP) a pay -as you - go program in yearly increments (plan 1 year and execute the 2nd year, or plan and execute the same year); that this ·~ecessltates ~maller projects and requires good planning a·n d adequate funding. · Mr. Davis pointed out that by 1973 the City of Atlanta will require $7,000,000 to maintain present servic e l evels of the exis ting Url:>an Renewal Projects; that new source of revenue will be required. Mr. Davis then turned the presentation over to Mr . Fountain of his office, who reviewed the financial report of his department, presented initially to CACUR on April 22nd',portions of which have since been updated and revised. Copy of Mr. Fountain's .report is atta~hed to the file copy of these minutes. · Following are high lights of that report: + �-4- For the 8 Urban Renew al Proj ects in E x ecuti on: Net Project Costs Local Non-Cash Grants -in-aid Local Cash and Real Estate Credits $60,000,000 20,000,000 1,000,000 Long delayed closin g out of these projects, has cost in interest charges alone (include·d in the Net Project costs) $4. 5 million or 7 1/2 %. Cash funds to defray local share c·osts came from 1957 and 1963 General Obligation Bond Is sue totaling 3. 2 million of which currently $2 .1 million are unincumb er ed. Of this amount $1. 7 is expected to be needed for the Bedford - Pine 1970 NDP project. The $20,000,000 local grants -in - aid represent the eligible portion of $29,000,000 local Capital Improvemen ts. 9 S. 2% of the City' s total share is represented by non-cash contributions. Problem Areas: 1. Butler Stre e t Project - Middle School costing $2 million has been delaying closing of this project (now scheduled for contract in August 1969). 2. a. Rawson-Washington Project - neighborhood Facilitie s Building costing $1,000,000, only $150 , 000 of w hich will be an eligible credit. b. 3. Park costing $240,000 , $33 , 000 of which will be eligible. Rockdale - a. b. c. Elementary school to cost $1. 5 million Park costing $126 , 000 Two primary schools to cost $1 million each . "The advent of .the Neighborhood Development Pr9gram has brought to an end the period du r ing which the City could pledge an improvement and then w ait until funding became available before completin g it . Under the terms of an NDP a g r eement , the City must have completed or have under contract all non-cash g r ants in-aid pledged fo r that particular year or contribute the requi r ed amount in cash". The l ocal s ha r e of p r esent NDP proj e cts a r e f unded fo r 1969 w i t h e xi sting Public Impr ovem e nts a m oun t i ng to $10 . 6 million (including G e o r g i a Tech II a nd Bedford-Pine ) . The 1970 N D P in B edfor d -Pine , M odel C i t i es , E dg ewoo d and Vine City i s expected to require $2. 7 millio n c as h + $ 2.3 million n on-c as h, both of which are funded . However the s e include very little activity i n Edgewood and Vine City . �-5- If critical slum areas such as Plunkett Town and Lightening are included in the 1970 NDP execution program, these areas will require a direct cash commitment on the part of the City, sirice no available non-cash credits are currently planned for these areas. (Note : It is unfortunate that substantial potential credits for the Techwood and Hunter Street viaducts were permitted to lapse). · The report continues: "The City's problems in trying to develop a comprehensive Neighborhood Development Program are basically caused by two factors : 1) The lack of current estimates of the cost to complete the total required activities in each of the project areas. The development of this information is presently being discussed by the Planning Department, the Finance Department, the Atlanta Housing Authority and Model Cities and hopefully the information can be developed before the end of this year. 2) The fact that the City of Atlanta is approaching the point where we will no longer be able to finance our Neighborhood Development Program with non-cash grants -in-aid without supplementing them with a significant amount of cash. As an example the estimated cost -f or completion of the proposed 5-year NDP activities in the Model Cities area is $91 million. We presently have approximately $4 .1 million in eligible non-cash grants -in-aid with proposed (not funded) improvements totaling approximately $14 million for the period through 1975. This means that if we are to complete a significant portion of the redevelopment and rehabitation of the Model Cities area by the end of 1975 the City will have had to come forth with between 3 and 4 million dollars a year starting in 1971 either in the form of additional non-cash items such as sewer separations or as actual cash contributions. This is only the requirement for one NDP area". . . . Possible sources for additional funds include : General Funds - already under pres sure . G e n e r a l Obligation Bonds - app r ov e d f or i ssue of $4 million annually , NOP General Obligation Bond Issue (as a possibility). New Revenue sources with State approval such as payroll with certain portions ear marked for NDP. tax or sal es tax , �-6- - The Chairman commented that this indicates. we should speed up the closing out of exsisting projects and that new sources of revenue are needed. Mr. Calloway put in a plea for additional parks in certain areas of the City. The Executive Director read the financial statement, which was accepted (filed)._ A preliminary draft budget was p.fesented by the Executive Director. The Chairman announced the total which he said was quite modest and asked to have the proposed budget reproduced for distribution at the next meeting. The Chairman then reminded the members again to submit, in writing, any suggestions they have for changes or improvements in the Urban Renewal Program, to the Executive Director for consolidation and consideration at the next general meeting in September. He stated that the originators of such comments would not be revealed. As there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:00 P.M. Respectfully submitted, ....,_... •.

II

/- , 0 , · 143.215.248.55y ~ Malcolm D. Jones Executive Director Encls: As stated (with file copy only). Invitational Notice Agenda Draft reorganization Finance Department report Preliminary proposal for budget . �